We force you to wear a seatbelt because it will save your life.

As stupid an argument as can be said as in “since you OBVIOUSLY won’t take responsibility for yourself, we shall make you take responsibility for yourself”. And if you do not, the force of Government will take away your money (via a fine) or take away your time (with jail time). I am glad to be in the Live Free or Die State that still, at least in this respect, has told the Nanny Staters (both those in-state and those in the Federal Govt that has tried, over and over, to bribe NH officials with our own tax monies) to go pound sand – let adults make this decision for themselves. However, many States have not treated their citizens this way – and started the slippery slope in motion. The slippery slope didn’t start out that way – it was first a mandate to the car companies “you will put seatbelts in cars” rather than letting the marketplace make that decision and proceeded downward from there.

And we see it happening again. As I wrote here, gun control is merely the symptom of a greater disease – those that govern believe they rule instead. They are all too willing to breach the fidelity of the Constitution and the Declaration that Government is instituted by men, and not Government over men (a large difference, in my mind). Government was to protect an Individual’s Rights – and not take them away simply because there is a problem at hand. They have faced the problem – and answered wrongly. They see not an Individual but the collective – and proceed to solve problems from that perspective,and in many cases, throw away and walk away from the ideals on which this Constitutional Republic was born.

We hear all the time that the Slippery Slope doesn’t exist – or that it will not happen. B.S. on that – for here is a prime example of “oh it will never happen because we didn’t want that!”. Cool, bucko, somebody else decided to drop that horizontal negative 70 degrees.

CNN has an Op-Ed by former Carter Administration (really, they admit to that?) Assistant Treasurer for Enforcement (BATF) Richard Davis who writes of wanting to create a centralized gun owner database to better trace guns at crime scenes and to allow them to watch where gun purchases were being made from. He writes disdainfully that the NRA marshalled its members – it was shot down as a “slippery slope” would then use that for gun confiscation.

… One common thread to the opposition was the “slippery slope argument,” which argued that the regulation would create a centralized list of all gun owners’ names — which it would not have done —

But that is exactly what has been done in NY – a government database of gun owners was publicly revealed by the Journal News) and what Feinstein wants to do with S.150 and her renewed attempt to have a national gun registry. This Administration will go the next step – confiscation. Slippery Slope

…The assumption that any regulation of firearms sets us on the path to confiscation of weapons is not only ludicrous on its face, it ignores all political reality.

ER, that’s exactly what NY Governor Cuomo said that he would be willing to sign if such legislation reached his desk. and Feinstein said in her bill summary that at the death of an “assault weapon” owner, those firearms were to be forfeit to the Government – it could not be willed to heirs. Slippery Slope

And like all bureaucrats, he believes that any requirement, any loss of choice, is perfectly reasonable if it derives an outcome satisfactory to them – a fiat instead of Freedom:

…Why require the use of seat belts if wearing a seat belt does not always save a life in an accident? Why prohibit people from carrying guns onto planes if it doesn’t eliminate all risk of hijacking? Why prohibit providing assistance to terrorists if it doesn’t stop all terrorist acts? Why require tests for the issuance of driver’s licenses if it doesn’t stop all accidents?

We require these regulations because they address problems that need to be addressed and because if these regulations can save some lives, they are steps worth taking. So it should be with the gun debate.

…Maybe it is thousands of lives over time; maybe it is hundreds. But isn’t every life saved worth it? Would it not have been worth it if even some of the lives lost at Sandy Hook could have been saved because the shooter did not have an assault weapon?

Any loss of life is a tragedy and is duly agreed upon and noted. But how come I never hear from these folks about the corresponding loss of Liberty? They forget that true Liberty and Freedom have saved more people than any misguided (or not) regulation. And no, the argument that all should suffer and lose Liberty involuntarily by others for the life of a single person is an argument of a person that has no other.

Funny, Progressives haven’t said that every unborn is worth saving….

Share this:

Co-founder of GraniteGrok, my concern is around Individual Liberty and Freedom (and how Government is taking that away from us). My fight, from a Conservative (with small "L" libertarian leanings) and evangelical Christian perspective, is with the Progressives that are forcing a collectivized and secular humanistic future upon us. As TEA Party activist, citizen journalist (and pundit!), my goal is to use the New Media to advance the radical notions of America's Founders back into our culture again.

Leave a Comment

IWKAGGP

Jesus Christ is everything an argument against abortion for you people?!?!?

Chris P. Bacon

im with you Skip. Screw seatbelts. While were at it DUI laws, drug laws, speed limits, mandatory car insurance, are burdensome and should be done away with too. Oh yeah, how could i forget about taxes, axe them too. Everyone should get to do what they want as long as it is only themselves they stand to harm……except when they are pregnant of course.

C. dog e. doG

I think I’m in love with a Publius. Thanks Sam for such a spot-on reference.
– C. dog

Notice in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of Federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "Fair Use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.